MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.

This place serves 7 purposes:
1) Debate about Trump.
2) Talking about Trump.
3) Shouting whatever you want at Trump.
4) Laughing, crying, hating, liking Trump.
5) Whatever else you want to do so long as it relates Trump.
6) Whateve else you want to do even though it has nothing to do with Trump.
7) etc. — René Descartes

"6) Whateve else you want to do even though it has nothing to do with Trump."

I think some people who claim Bowie or the Sex Pistols changed their lives in 1970's in fact continued to listen to Gilbert O'Sullivan, the Four Tops and Barbara Sreisand most of the time. Oh yes, and Gary Glitter. And Roberta Flack, Janis Ian and Jim Croce. That's Janis Ian, not Janis Joplin, btw. Go on, admit it. You know who you are.

Never have so many free individuals felt so helpless – so desperate to take back control from anyone they can blame for their feeling of having lost it. It should not be surprising that we have seen an exponential rise in hatred of minorities, the main pathology induced by political and economic shocks. These apparent racists and misogynists have clearly suffered silently for a long time from what Albert Camus called “an autointoxication – the evil secretion, in a sealed vessel, of prolonged impotence”. It was this gangrenous ressentiment, festering for so long in places such as the Daily Mail and Fox News, that erupted volcanically with Trump’s victory.

Also, is there any particular reason why you'd want Trump to win as opposed to some other Republican? — Michael

The good thing about Trump, as opposed to many other Republicans, is that he's not afraid to be conflictual with Democrats when he must. For example, about the importance of God in American public discourse, etc.

The good thing about Trump, as opposed to many other Republicans, is that he's not afraid to be conflictual with Democrats when he must. For example, about the importance of God in American public discourse, etc. — Agustino

I mean the issue is that the other Republican candidates, prior to Trump, were pretty much fighting the battle on Democrat ideological battleground, accepting the assumptions of the Democrats, which also happen to be the prevailing cultural assumptions that get disseminated through Media and the Academia. Trump is the first one taking the battle on his own ground, which is different from that one.

The good thing about Trump, as opposed to many other Republicans, is that he's not afraid to be conflictual with Democrats when he must. For example, about the importance of God in American public discourse, etc. — Agustino

Oh, please! Surely you are not counting on Donald Trump to restore God to some alleged central place in American public discourse? Give us a fucking collective break.

Oh, please! Surely you are not counting on Donald Trump to restore God to some alleged central place in American public discourse? Give us a fucking collective break. — Bitter Crank

Not necessarily, but he's the first Republican to have adopted the right attitude when fighting the Democrats, and not give in to their presumptions, not fight the battle on their territory. That is important.

Not necessarily, but he's the first Republican to have adopted the right attitude when fighting the Democrats, and not give in to their presumptions, not fight the battle on their territory. — Agustino

A program claiming to explain the place of Trump titled "The Roots of White Supremacy" is propaganda, and ought not to be taken seriously. After losing the election, radical leftists seem to have jumped back on their "Nazi nazi nazi, white supremacist, white supremacist" cart, where everyone they dislike is automatically a nazi or a white supremacist. The tactic of throwing this kind of fake dirt at your opposition no longer works. We all know that the millions of Americans who voted for Trump were not white supremacists. Sure, maybe among the 62 million that voted for Trump, 1 million or so, let's say, were white supremacists. But that's not the majority. That's not even a significant portion of Trump voters.

The good thing about Trump, as opposed to many other Republicans, is that he's not afraid to be conflictual with Democrats when he must. For example, about the importance of God in American public discourse, etc. — Agustino

Yup, Trump is a shining exemplar of Christian ethics. Just kidding. But hey, at least now we can say Merry Christmas again. Yay!

Dude a half hour monologue of history ranging over four centuries and several continents is way too dull to count as propaganda. The word 'nazi' though is never mentioned at all. It is your hysterical fulminating that is fake and propaganda. What 'we all know' is no doubt extensive, but listen to fucking thing before you know quite so well what it is saying. For a start, the historical legacy of white supremacy as exemplified by the British Empire and attitudes to Indian, Chinese, and African peoples and also natives of America and Australia are covered in some detail. That such a global and longterm cultural construction is not eradicated in a couple of generations does not require that it has the support of a lobby of overt supporters, it survives in law, in patterns of property ownership, in unconscious assumptions available to propagandists.

What is really terrible, is that Trump barely get's a mention, and then as merely the continuation of an historical process.

What 'we all know' is no doubt extensive, but listen to fucking thing before you know quite so well what it is saying. — unenlightened

I haven't listened to the thing, but I'm not tempted to after you've presented it as "explaining the place of Trump" when this place is associated with "white supremacy", something that I see as a fringe view since most of Trump supporters are not white supremacists. If you said here's a documentary about white supremacy that would have been interesting - but you didn't present it that way. The way you presented it is certainly propagandistic.

What is really terrible, is that Trump barely get's a mention, and then as merely the continuation of an historical process. — unenlightened

So... let's see. Trump barely gets mentioned, but this documentary is supposed to "explain the place of Trump".

So... let's see. Trump barely gets mentioned, but this documentary is supposed to "explain the place of Trump. — Agustino

So let's see. You dismiss as fake and propaganda a talk by a professor of History that you haven't heard, on the basis that it it is about white supremacy and mentions Trump. Now that is definitely making shit up to suit your prejudices, and frankly wilful ignorance that really ought to be beneath even your dignity.

Trump has repeatedly shown a reluctance to condemn white supremacists of various stripes. However, he is quick to criticize the classmates of those recently killed in Florida, or Black Americans who kneel peacefully.